Survey: Online Grading Database / Grading Seminar

[Adam Raoof]

ONLINE GRADING DATABASE

We are all very grateful for Carl Hibbard's work in developing and hosting the grading database. Bearing in mind we will now have two lists a year (three or four if you count the revisions!) we will ensure that the new implementation is up to the high standards that he has set, with some enhancements along the way.

I am asking for feedback from several groups;

- the Board of the ECF including the managers, to get their specific requirements
- the grading team and all the graders
- the organisers who have to use the list through the year via http://englishchessorganisers.blogspot.com/
- the chess public, via the Forum and mailing lists
- ECF Direct Members

a) what do you like/dislike about the current grading database?

b) what functionality would you like to add?

c) what functions should ECF members only have access to?

Please feel free to comment directly to me, or via this thread.

ADVERTISING

I am also offering you the chance to advertise on the grading database front page (currently http://grading.bcfservices.org.uk/), plus on the front page of the British Championships live games feed (currently http://britishchess2011.com/live_games.htm) - both pages that generate a huge audience!

This is in order to help pay for the cost of development and perhaps have some to spend on IT issues for the British Championships. Please contact me directly or Stewart Reuben (Marketing Director) to discuss these options.

GRADING SEMINAR AT THE LONDON CHESS CLASSIC

This tournament is taking place at Olympia in London from 3-12 December and as part of the Festival we have space for other events such as a FIDE Arbiter's Seminar and various talks.

I wondered if it would be useful for us to have a seminar for graders about aspects of the grading system? Richard Haddrell has said that he would be prepared to speak at the seminar, if there were a demand for it and we could agree an 'agenda'.

Would you be interested in such an event, and what issues would you like it to address? Should it include anyone interested in grading?

[Krishna Shiatis]

Hi Adam,

The database is most excellent now.

Something useful for the juniors might be to have lists for them in FIDE year groups as well as ECF year groups. We do need to have both because the EPSCA/ECF tournaments are run on ECF ages and the British/International selection is made on the FIDE age groups.

Just a thought.

Kind regards,

Krishna

[Adam Raoof]

Something useful for the juniors might be to have lists for them in FIDE year groups as well as ECF year groups. We do need to have both because the EPSCA/ECF tournaments are run on ECF ages and the British/International selection is made on the FIDE age groups.

That would be simple, I think - can you post a summary of what the differences are, Krishna?

[LozCooper]

Something useful for the juniors might be to have lists for them in FIDE year groups as well as ECF year groups. We do need to have both because the EPSCA/ECF tournaments are run on ECF ages and the British/International selection is made on the FIDE age groups.

That would be simple, I think - can you post a summary of what the differences are, Krishna?

FIDE is 1st January-31st December as opposed to school year.

[Alex Holowczak]

I received this by e-mail, but will duplicate my reply to Adam here:

The grading database should show the results of everyone's games, and mimic the FIDE equivalent in various ways.

There should be tournament crosstables - perhaps endorsed with PGN files - again a la FIDE, with the names of the arbiter(s) and organiser(s). These then get listed on each player's grading page. E.g. the FIDE page for me shows I was a Deputy Arbiter at the Sunningdale Congress.

In a world where everyone will be a member, there's no need to distinguish between the members and non-members.

[Paul McKeown]

Everyone's grade should always be published.

Also * grades, perhaps indicated separately.

For members, there should be enhanced functionality:

a) results of individual games should be shown
b) scores where available
c) cross tables
d) graphical representation of trend
e) statistics, e.g. grades by percentile and decile
f) statistical reliability of each grade if some mathematical function can be derived
g) links to other national ratings for players with other national ratings
h) number of games played should be available back to 1994, as well as the number

Give people an incentive to be a member...

[Roger de Coverly]

In a world where everyone will be a member, there's no need to distinguish between the members and non-members.

But they won't all be members. At the very least on the latest proposals you have Scots and other £ 6 a tournament people. You also have non-members being charged at £ 2 or £ 1 a head. You will have people playing in FIDE rated events.

You are also assuming the outcome of a vote before it's happened.

[Roger de Coverly]

For members, there should be enhanced functionality:
.

I know the tournaments I've played in, I want to know where my opponents have played so I can download their games. I want to know that whether or not they are members. Equally I don't want them doing the same to me although that's probably unavoidable.

Give people an incentive to be a member...

You don't have incentives under compulsion, It's a case of become a member or give up over the board graded chess in England.

[Paul Cooksey]

But they won't all be members.

You don't have incentives under compulsion, It's a case of become a member or give up over the board graded chess in England.

I might think these arguments were contradictory, if I didn't know Roger believed membership would cause both floods and fires.

[Roger de Coverly]

I might think these arguments were contradictory, if I didn't know Roger believed membership would cause both floods and fires.

To clarify, the ECF's desired objective is that you continue to play over the board and nationally graded chess in England without being an ECF member only if you confine your play to Congresses. As Paul McKeown plays in several leagues and for several clubs, if he and others like him wish to continue their current chess activity they are forced into ECF membership. Hence the comment about membership incentives being irrelevant.

I'm sure the ECF could make any number of optional or pay as you go membership schemes work. It's universal (compulsory for most purposes) per head schemes which in John Nunn's words from 2002, fundamentally alter the relationship of players with the ECF.

You might possibly at a pinch persuade a £ 6 tournament player to upgrade to £ 19 membership by offering membership incentives, so perhaps my arguments need refining.

[Ian Kingston]

What is the relevance of all this to the topic of the thread? I think there are now at least three discussions of membership going on, and only one is under an appropriate heading.

[Roger de Coverly]

What is the relevance of all this to the topic of the thread?

The relevance is that the question of enhanced services for members was mooted.

For club players there's no effective difference (if the ECF proposals go through) but for Congress players particularly for Scots and other £ 6 visitors there might be.

You could of course adopt the principle that certain information on the grading site is confidential and only visible to those with a suitable password. This doesn't depend on the membership status of the player whose history you are checking, rather the access rights of the inquirer. You can password some of the data, but it's likely to be disclosed or otherwise hacked.

[Paul Cooksey]

What is the relevance of all this to the topic of the thread? I think there are now at least three discussions of membership going on, and only one is under an appropriate heading.

Which is unfortunate, and maybe a manifestation of Nunn's point.

I don't think this is exactly hijacking, grading as the ECFs main service in the eyes of most players and seems to be a thing closely related to membership. In this thread someone suggested the online grading database should be used as a tool to encourage membership. In the other one that is "off-topic" someone suggested a reason to adopt ELO (sic) is to remove the ECFs power to enforce membership.

(I see Roger has also replied. I also view it as unfortunate we seem to be dominating threads. But other people are welcome to post more )

[Ian Kingston]

What is the relevance of all this to the topic of the thread?

The relevance is that the question of enhanced services for members was mooted.

Fair enough. But this:

To clarify, the ECF's desired objective is that you continue to play over the board and nationally graded chess in England without being an ECF member only if you confine your play to Congresses. As Paul McKeown plays in several leagues and for several clubs, if he and others like him wish to continue their current chess activity they are forced into ECF membership. Hence the comment about membership incentives being irrelevant.

I'm sure the ECF could make any number of optional or pay as you go membership schemes work. It's universal (compulsory for most purposes) per head schemes which in John Nunn's words from 2002, fundamentally alter the relationship of players with the ECF.

You might possibly at a pinch persuade a £ 6 tournament player to upgrade to £ 19 membership by offering membership incentives, so perhaps my arguments need refining.

has almost nothing to do with the topic at hand.

I say 'almost nothing' because it is always possible to claim that all ECF activities are ultimately related to funding and hence to membership. But that doesn't mean that membership has to be discussed at every opportunity.

[Richard Bates]

I say 'almost nothing' because it is always possible to claim that all ECF activities are ultimately related to funding and hence to membership. But that doesn't mean that membership has to be discussed at every opportunity.

Especially when the same points are being made repeatedly in every single thread! It's almost as if whenever a new thread is created which has some sort of membership angle the need is felt to transfer a few basic 'membership arguments' to it just on the off chance that anyone reading that particular thread hasn't stumbled across them elsewhere. And frankly if they haven't then it's probably because they're desperately trying to avoid them like the plague!